England 3-2 Sweden: long balls, set-pieces and terrible defending

Roy Hodgson made one change. Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain was dropped with Ashley Young moving to the left, and Andy Carroll coming upfront as a target man.

Erik Hamren brought in three players – Johan Elmander upfront, Anders Svensson in the middle, and Jonas Olsson at the back, though Sweden played pretty much the same formation as against Ukraine.

This was a crazy, open match that could have gone either way – both sides had spells when they were on top.

Formations

This was basically 4-4-2 against 4-4-2. Sweden’s formation is often described as a 4-2-3-1, but here Zlatan Ibrahimovic played high up the pitch, basically as a second striker. Welbeck, meanwhile, played high up the pitch close to Carroll. He often dropped into midfield when England didn’t have the ball, but his role was a little confused, and this deep position meant he couldn’t work the channels as he’d done against France. The only time he got running with the ball was towards the end of the first half, when five Sweden defenders surrounded him.

The key in terms of positioning was not necessarily the formation battle, but how high the defensive lines were playing. England were pushing very high up, much further up the pitch than against France. Sometimes they pressed well and forced Sweden back, but often they were exposed with passes in behind. Ibrahimovic nearly embarrassed John Terry in a straight race, while Glen Johnson had to make a last-ditch tackle after a ball in behind England’s back four.

Sweden probably didn’t defend high enough. Their defence lacks pace, but they dropped into the penalty box readily and were vulnerable to Carroll’s aerial threat. He tended to work the left of the pitch, against Olof Mellberg and Andreas Granqvist. His goal, after a superb Steven Gerrard cross from deep, justified his selection and England’s approach.

Carroll and long balls

But the problem with playing Carroll is that the side becomes too focused upon playing long balls – and while that obviously had a decisive impact in the penalty box, it must also be partly blamed for England’s inability to keep the ball. Their pass completion rate didn’t improve from the France game, despite playing against weaker opposition and higher up the pitch, and Hodgson’s side could have done with calmer, steadier passing to hold the advantage at 1-0.

But the game was largely about headers and set-pieces, and territory was more important than possession – maybe typical, for a game involving these two nations. England’s tendency to lose the ball meant they were forced into their own half, and they kept giving away free-kicks, giving Sweden a chance to get the ball in the box. There didn’t seem to be much creativity from open play.

Second half

Sweden scored from two early second half set-pieces, and at 2-1 up were clearly on top. England looked shellshocked, unable to keep the ball for long periods and retreating much deeper than they’d been in the first half.

The introduction of Theo Walcott was crucial to England’s recovery. The standard criticism of Walcott is that he had little more than pace, but his raw speed was absolutely crucial for England in this battle of territory. He simply drove England up the pitch and forced Sweden to defend deeper. At no point did England play good football, but a goal from another set-piece (a corner, which came after Isaksson had saved a header from a preceding free-kick) got them back in the game.

Walcott’s strike was deflected (look at Sebastian Larsson’s sock when the ball goes past it) and the nature of the strike didn’t illustrate what he was bringing to the game (directness and width), but he was the appropriate goalscorer.

Closing stages

Walcott was the only crucial substitute. Sweden made changes upfront and at right-back due to injury, and the introduction of winger Christian Wilhelmsson (who came off the bench to good effect against Ukraine) could have done for Sweden what Walcott did for England. It didn’t, and Walcott was the most important player in the final twenty minutes, setting up Welbeck for a clever finish for the winner.

But the second half’s main feature was simply terrible defending – both at set-pieces and in open play. For two sides expected to retain great shape without the ball, they were both were all over the place – the wingers were slow to get back into position, the central midfielders scampered forward when they should have been protecting their back four, and too many free-kicks were conceded.

All that, combined with (a) poor possession play when either side was ahead and (b) the fact that, realistically, both needed a win, meant a goalfest – but neither side actually played well, in tactical or technical terms.

Conclusion

Tactically, one of the least impressive games of the tournament – though it was interesting how territory was so much more important to both sides than possession, (which, for the record, was 50-50).

Sweden are eliminated after two very disappointing performances, and their terrible record of conceding headed goals from set-pieces continued, though England did their best do out-do them at the other end.

Hodgson will find more negatives than positives in this display, despite the win. England didn’t do much well – they didn’t retain the ball nor have a good defensive shape, though the Walcott change was vital. With three different scorers, Wayne Rooney’s return will mean disappointment for at least one of Welbeck, Carroll and Walcott.

It was painful to watch. I thought “here we go again” as soon as Sweden scored to make it 1-1. Then they scored a second, then super-sub came on.
Overall, I personally think England have the most un-technically gifted group of players there’s ever been in a national team. We’re a team of grafters & scrappers. If we win this tournament, Roy Hodgson deserves his own award especially made for him. When we went 1-0 up, we defended as though we were playing against Brazil or Spain.

Footballfan on June 16, 2012 at 4:44 am

As an England fan I am aware of the limitations of English players. In England football is built around work ethic and not on skill or mercurial passing like Spain. So personally I’m not fussy if England can’t pass as well as Germany or Spain. But it is English work ethic that enabled England to pull off a draw against France and come from behind against Sweden.In football, what matters are goals and wins, not necessarily pretty football. England’s defence admittedly wasn’t as good as the defence against France. Partly due to Zlatan Ibrahimovic’s positioning IMO. Zlatan Ibrahimovic did not play as a target man but rather dropped outside the penalty area, engaged in build up play, contributed to attack down the flanks and bullied the England defenders physically. But I don’t think this problem will occur again as I believe that Roy Hodgson will return to defending deep with 2 banks of 4 in future matches.

That said I don’t think if I were Hodgson I won’t play Milner on the wing in future games – he does not provide the drive Walcott does. England’s attack improved a lot after Walcott replaced Milner.

I feel that there are a lot more positives that England can take away thus far in this tournament. They are much better as a unit than that in the last 2 World Cups and are less static and one-dimensional. It is best not to write this squad off.

Jimmy on June 16, 2012 at 9:45 am

I’m English & as much as I put us down, I do want us to win. I do think we get what we deserve if we do lose though for playing the way we play. Even if it would be suicidal, I’d rather go out knowing we played with courage and at least tried taking the game to the opponent. And actually, for the work ethic we’re known for, we don’t exactly show it against somewhat better opposition. We just sit & wait, and after the game, everyone praises us for our monumental ‘effort’ – But what about.. France’s effort? 65% possession, 20 something shots on goal. That’s effort.
I’m not asking for 700 passes in a game, because I know we just can’t do that. I want us to chase, press, attack etc etc.

Footballfan on June 16, 2012 at 2:43 pm

Perhaps for work ethic I confused the football played by Premier League teams for that from England. That was my mistake. For England’s players not tracking back, I think that is the reason why Hodgson opted to play a deep defensive line for all his matches in charge, including the friendlies vs Belgium and Norway. May not be the best style of football – I prefer my teams to press, but at least to me it is better than being utterly clueless defending high up and get torn apart like what happened against Germany in the World Cup.

simonsays on June 16, 2012 at 11:29 am

I don’t agree that England has a good work ethic. If anything I see players slow to get back into defensive positions, and surprisingly clueless when it comes to making little runs to show for possession. What astonishes me is that you get these players in Champions League clubs- Walcott, Rooney, Wellbeck, Gerrard etc etc- in fact pretty much the entire team, you put them together, and there’s an almost total lack of confidence in their ability. Like what Thomas Muller said in 2010, “they look[ed] a little freaked out.”

I simply cannot believe that these English players are passengers in their respective clubs. The game’s too ruthless for that. So how to explain their performances?

Footballfan on June 16, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Well I don’t think that England’s players are passengers at their own clubs.Welbeck, Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard etc all had immense contributions to their respective club sides. But the main problem is basically gelling the squad together. Man United play a traditional 4-4-2 formation while Man City, Chelsea and Arsenal model their football tactics to the current ones in Europe. The difference being Arsenal’s focus more on possession. Liverpool has their own system as well. So England’s players come from club sides that have their own unique system that they have been training and playing in almost every week. So when they play for their country, they are forced into a system they are not familiar with which results in gelling problems ehich affects their performance. This could be the reason why Hodgson opted for a system that is unambitious in attacking play, yet simple at the same time. Compare that to Germany and Spain. Most of the German players play at home where the 4-2-3-1 system is used. Jochim Loew also uses the 4-2-3-1 system. Spain uses Barca’s system and picks the core of their squad from FC Barca. So this could be the reason why England’s players for the past few years have failed to shine on the international stage.

Adrian on June 16, 2012 at 7:59 pm

this so called ‘hodgeson system’ is how england have always played. Ugly

Joe90 on June 17, 2012 at 7:03 am

The reason the English players don’t look like ‘passengers’ is the quality of the EPL isn’t as good as the media wants you to believe.

Wow – ‘We really suck but I’m ok with it.’

How sad is the English Football fan?

Adrian on June 16, 2012 at 2:08 am

im not saying england need to play like spain, i dont think anyone expects that.

but we are INCAPABLE of stringing 5 passes together without giving it away.

The center midfielders do not want to take passes from the center backs. Its a simple detail that is MAJORLY overlooked.

it is something that needs to be rectified or we will be majorly exposed against a decent team.

There is this myth perpetuated by pundits that Greece won by just defending.

The truth is when they had the ball and had posession they made it count, they didnt give it away easily and were a threat

I still think it may even be worth playing Gerrard on the right of midfield and putting a real CM in the middle who is comfortable picking up the ball from a defender , turning and making a simple pass.

stephan on June 16, 2012 at 4:45 am

“I still think it may even be worth playing Gerrard on the right of midfield and putting a real CM in the middle who is comfortable picking up the ball from a defender , turning and making a simple pass.”

And that person is?

Ivan on June 16, 2012 at 5:44 am

Carick

ersatzian on June 16, 2012 at 8:11 am

Oh. And here I thought you were going to nominate Gazza. Silly me.

Adrian on June 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm

Henderson

Anonymous on June 16, 2012 at 2:11 am

Walcott and Welbeck, allied with Young (although he was poor tonight) seem to be the trio most likely to cause problems for most sides at the tournament, and especially against a Ukraine side that need a win and are under terrible pressure to attack from the home crowd. Additionally, Welbeck, Young and Rooney make up a United axis that could potentially win games despite the slackness in midfield. While Milner’s defensive contributions are well noted, and his early crosses seem suited to Carroll’s galloping headers, Walcott has offered good cover and positioning at Arsenal this season when asked, and should get the start if only to better cater to the counterattacking strengths of the United troika.

Speed and a thrilling (could be a bit of hyperbole) directness now seem to be the hallmark of this young England side, and I hope they utilize those strengths more if they proceed to the knockout rounds as I fear that set piece delivery and aerial threat will be hollow phrases against better sides than Sweden.

This was the big test for England in terms of getting out of the group. They certainly didn’t pass it with flying colours, but a pass is worth its weight in gold (or silver, as the case may be), and as long as they don’t lose to Ukraine, the England army will stumble on. Sweden are out now and will have to sort out their defence if they want to push on and reach the World Cup.

D on June 16, 2012 at 2:17 am

Found it quite laughable that pundits still maintain that this England team has “quality” amid claims before the game that they would “have to much for the Swedes”. Hopefully this game has brought these people a little reality, that in fact England are a desperately average team.

The pundits were so infuriating, when Hansen and Shearer kept saying Sweden were an average side and that England would definitely win. I don’t know how they still have their jobs after years of talking crap about players they have never even heard of.

Rant over ha

iden on June 16, 2012 at 10:47 am

I thought Hansen and Shearer were drunk, especially after the game, they looked completely pissed after the match.

David B on June 16, 2012 at 11:49 am

My turn, their commentating is crap! All hyperboles and stereotypical statements with little to no tactical insight. At least my taxes don’t pay for their ‘lovely’ insight, but then again my taxes pay for Don Cherry, who is just as bad as the lot of them. Ok, my rant over. Next?

pat on June 16, 2012 at 11:04 pm

I have complained to the BBC about the standard of punditry. I suggest you do the same. In fact, if there was a way of a large number of us complaining en masse I’d be all for it.

It is woeful. I know people might say we should just ignore it but it is insultingly bad. It’s bad enough that they don’t bring anything to the coverage but they actually make it worse. And are paid large sums of money to do so.

Jamie on June 16, 2012 at 2:28 am

I just thought the 2nd half was bizzare. England seemed shellshocked after losing the first goal, it came out of nothing really and i thought we did a good job in the end to win it. We must keep the ball better but ball retention will obviously significantly improve with Rooney in and Carroll out.
I feel England fans must take positives out of 4 points from first 2 games without having our best player.

Rooney will bring creativity in the midfield which is something england badly needs. Unless you want Andy Carrol to be the primary target when england attacks…

Monty on June 16, 2012 at 2:58 am

What you don’t think Rooney is superior at ball retention than Andy Carroll?

tom on June 16, 2012 at 3:26 am

i suspect rooney, as evidenced by his brief spell in that position after the man city drubbing last season, would play the carrick role better than carrick ever could. shame that’ll always be considered a waste of his talents by old-fashioned english pundits and coaches underestimating the importance of the role.

stephan on June 16, 2012 at 4:47 am

Nah, taking him further away from goal is a waste of his talent.

tom on June 16, 2012 at 5:01 am

thanks alan… uh, sorry, stephan*

stephan on June 16, 2012 at 5:43 am

Sorry, I’ll expand. Taking Rooney away from goal to cycle the ball blunts his effectiveness and his world-class goal scoring ability. I completely understand the importance of having players in the centre of the park to control the match flow, but there are a number of players, even for England, that can perform the same function if Rooney played deep, but only a handful in the world who are of his class as a number ten. Xavi is a all-time great, but Messi is still more important to Barcelona, and Iniesta is more important to the Spain side. I think it’s foolish to take your best attacker and move him further away from goal.

tom on June 16, 2012 at 8:44 am

i understand, but still, ‘a number of players’? there are none in this squad, arguably none fit in the country (this “the english are too boorish to understand carrick’s subtle genius” argument has always been a strawman and, honestly, condescending) and it’s why we’re not going anywhere. of course it’s an undesirable sacrifice, but we have a passable strikeforce without wayne rooney, we do not have a passable midfield. we are going to get so maimed in the middle when we face a stronger side that rooney won’t have a chance to show off his attacking abilities – more likely he’ll get frustrated and start kicking people.

for the record, i genuinely think rooney could potentially be one of the top 5 deep-lying playmakers in the world, and i hope one day he gets the opportunity to prove that when age starts to take hold of him.

Anonymous on June 16, 2012 at 3:29 am

Word of wisdom

Adrian on June 16, 2012 at 3:40 am

i believe rooney will drop too deep and try to bulldoze his way through defences. which works about as well as gerrards mythical long range passing.

um, didn’t gerrard hit two long-range assists in two games? i.e. half of england’s goal total? i wouldn’t call that mythical at all.

Monty on June 16, 2012 at 9:14 am

England started a striker with four league goals against Sweden. They have a much bigger problem when it comes to their strikeforce.

Daniel on June 16, 2012 at 2:40 am

Must not praise England for winning.. Must not praise Walcott for scoring a long range goal, making a superb assist and nearly providing another superb assist (barring Gerrard’s poor finish),.. Must not praise (or pick up on) Walcotts off the ball runs which were the reason why he was pinning Sweden back..

But must focus on the obvious and produce an awful article that attempts to call itself “analysis”, usually I am so favourable but this is a dreadful article. The irony is, of course, that this article criticises England so much, yet it is a symbolism and a metaphor for England’s football style: blatant, no focus on the sly and intriguing, lacking any real intent and of course, being unable to construct a few sentences (passes) together that aren’t complete crap,,

Ben Hughes on June 16, 2012 at 2:54 am

Long-range goal was deflected. ZM rightly pointed out that Walcott’s introduction singe-handedly changed the game, how is that not praising him? Something tells me you’re only throwing such a tantrum because your nation got criticised. Face it, it was a very entertaining game but also indicative of how poor we are. Any half-decent side would have easily swept Sweden aside given their very poor defence. Any team that finds it that hard against Sweden is going to get slaughtered by Spain.

Qpalzm on June 16, 2012 at 3:12 am

In fact author praised England a bit too much in the France England article.

Chris on June 16, 2012 at 6:49 am

Does anybody realise that England has the best goal conversion of the Euro’s so far at 25%? Stick that in your cynical pipes and smoke it! Come on England!

Lucas on June 16, 2012 at 10:52 am

This conversion rate only accounts for shots on target or shots overall? If the later you didn’t think it’s said that England managed 16 shots on 2 games?

Scouse Steve on June 16, 2012 at 2:42 am

“their terrible record of conceding headed goals from set-pieces continued”

Sweden did not concede a headed goal from a set-piece?

Ben Hughes on June 16, 2012 at 2:52 am

I was thinking that. I guess they still conceded a goal from a set piece though.

Looking at that midfield makes me wonder what could’ve been. Imagine instead of Gerrard, Parker, Milner, England could’ve had Carrick, Wilshere, Lampard/Scholes with Young-Walcott on the wings and Rooney up top…sigh…

Adrian on June 16, 2012 at 3:42 am

Lampard/Scholes has been tried and well , quite frankly. Suck balls

stephan on June 16, 2012 at 4:57 am

Or Carrick and Wilshire in the middle, Gerrard rightish, Young on the left, Rooney in the hole and Welbeck up top. Theo to provide pace late in the match and Carroll to come on if needing to lump the ball into the box.

Baxter_P on June 16, 2012 at 5:50 am

For Brazil 2014, Hodgson and England could have Wilshere and, perhaps, Cleverley or McEachran as their first choice centre midfield. They’re the types of players England currently lack (if they fulfil their potential in the next 1-2 seasons, of course). I think Hodgson will eventually have the personnel he needs for this system, but at the moment I think Gerrard and Parker are the best two for the task.

Anonymous on June 16, 2012 at 6:28 am

You neglect to name a decent young defensive midfielder in that lineup, mostly because there isn’t one. Rodwell is the best chance you have of producing a holding midfielder in the next two years and he is drifting dangerously towards the mediocre. If you’re lucky Jay Spearing or Emmanuel Frimpong will come good, and if you’re not then you really will have three passers in midfield being tossed about by countries with structure and physicality. Hodgson’s system is entirely about shape and space, and he would never allow a surfeit of creators to bumble up his life’s work.

Monty on June 16, 2012 at 9:25 am

Jack Wilshere is the probably the only one of the young midfielders who will be a key player for 2014 maybe Cleverly will have a spot on the plane. The others mentioned are far away from contributing to the senior team. It is more likely that players like Tom Huddlestone(if he is ever fit) and Mark Noble getting a shot during the World Cup cycle.

Geoff on June 16, 2012 at 11:10 pm

Lee Cattermole will come good by WC2014, he’ll captain England to world cup glory. You mark my words.

ramsey12 on June 19, 2012 at 10:25 am

frimpong will not play for england. you should have mentioned Jake Livermore.

Fred on June 16, 2012 at 10:31 pm

Like Hodgson will be in charge of England in 2014.

Monty on June 16, 2012 at 3:14 am

This game proves that low quality can led to high entertainment. England one this game in the complete opposite fashion they were supposed to. Hodgson was supposed to bring organization to this squad but they conceded twice on set pieces. Am I the only one who thinks this would been the game where a disciplined holding midfielder like Barry or Carrick was missing?

Adrian on June 16, 2012 at 3:43 am

Barry is rubbish. Slow and takes about 15 minutes to turn with the ball at his feet.

Mark on June 16, 2012 at 5:10 am

Barry would have made things worse, he’s dreadful, slow on the ball and slow in general.

David B on June 16, 2012 at 11:59 am

Carrick would of been great and Lampard was also missed yesterday. He did a great job for Chelsea in the CL of holding the ball when pressed, doing simple turns and finding an outlet. This ability was desperately missed against Sweden.

Mark on June 16, 2012 at 5:07 am

Who cares how we played tonight? Got the result, that’s all that matters in a game like this.

We were expected to go out and attack Sweden, despite us being average, we’re still superior to Sweden, so we’re expected to go out and break them down, but going out and attacking sides, dominating games, that’s just not England’s strengths, particularly with our awful ball retention and painful lack of creativity without Rooney.

The fact that we only scraped past a pretty average Sweden side has no bearing on how we’re actually going to do in the tournament, because quite simply, how we played tonight is not how we’re going to take on the big teams, when it really matters. Play like we did tonight against the Spanish or Germans, we’d get torn apart, but we’re not going to play like we did tonight are we?

Judge us on how we played against France, because that’s how we’ll play against the top sides. And Ribery, Benzema and to an extent Nasri, arguably the best attacking trio at the tournament found it extremely difficult to break us down.

Lol on June 16, 2012 at 5:20 am

Rooney does not add creativity

Bk on June 16, 2012 at 6:33 am

Rooney is the best england have going forward

Orellano on June 16, 2012 at 3:49 pm

He’s certainly a lot more creative than Welbeck or Carroll!

11_giggsy_11 on June 17, 2012 at 3:55 pm

At club level, he adds creativity in terms of exploiting the movement of the wingers at United and feeding them, in turn they feed him back. That is his speciality in terms of creativity in the hole, i.e., the second-striker role. He has a killer long switch-ball from left to right. He gets the wingers involved in the game quickly, which is maybe down to Fergie’s influence as he loves wing play (which is maybe why Rooney hasn’t turned into the type of player some thought he could be as he is playing to the team’s strengths and trademark style, as that powerful running at players has gone from his arsenal). If a team is going to rely on wing play, Rooney is the ideal second-striker for it and add the notion that Carroll’s relies on crosses, that combination could make sense, even if its not some people’s cup of tea.

He is creative but his creativity is set up to thrive in a wing-play and counter attacking system as that is what his game has been tailored to since leaving Everton. He has a different kind of creativity to that of say a second-striker like Totti or Cassano.

But when you don’t win and you have played in poor fashion throughout, what do you have left to cling to?

If you accept pragmatism can take you so far, then there is no problem but you cannot complain when a team beats you and you were nagative.

It’s difficult to assess the France game in so far as, until the Ukraine game, France had not won a game at a tournament since 2006. The French side is still a work in progress under Blanc much like England under Hodgson.

Just don’t expect England to shift from this still irrespective of how long Hodgson is in charge. It’s what he does.

ZM,why are you surprised?That’s Hodgson’s style.This is the maximum you could expect from this English team and this manager.

David B on June 16, 2012 at 12:09 pm

I’m more surprised that England played un-Hodgson like yesterday, in that the two banks of four were often pulled out of shape. Often due to the CM trying to press and cause a turn-over high up the pitch. For those of you who know Hodgson’s teams and systems well, any chance this was part of the game plan? Or did the CM’s let the game get to them?

Juvefan on June 16, 2012 at 1:22 pm

This is his plan,he prefers long passes and just these types of goals that England scored in the last two games.Of course,the players aren’t robots and they can’t always press and and cover their zone.But I think they are giving whatever they can and are trying to play Hodgson’s game.

This is starting to look like my favourite football film “Mike Basset the England manager”!Old school Gafer with tactics “four four fuc..ing two!”Scrapy,dodgy defending,poor ball retention but they are progressing.Maybe Rooney will “do Maradona” in 91. min. against Ukraine !

Hey ZM. I think you are a bit to harsh on England in this article. True, they didn’t have top quality (after all there is not a single player cept for Rooney that could be clasified as top lad) but they are getting results as a team which seems to be the most important thing in this Euro where only a few teams play as a team.
True, they did mess up but also came back which is great knowing England past …

dearieme on June 16, 2012 at 10:31 am

England’s best player for many a year has been A Cole. Rooney isn’t remotely “world class” – if you picked an EPL XI to play a La Liga XI, Rooney wouldn’t be in the side. Cole would.

Monty on June 16, 2012 at 10:36 am

I think Rooney’s 27 goals and how much he contributes in build up play would put him in the EPL XI

Orellano on June 16, 2012 at 4:25 pm

If Rooney isn’t world class then there are only like 4 or 5 attackers in the world who are.

dearieme on June 16, 2012 at 8:04 pm

“World Class” means you’d be in an Earth squad of 23 to play in the solar system championship. Rooney wouldn’t be in the 23. QED.

Monty on June 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm

He would be in my 23.

Orellano on June 17, 2012 at 1:18 am

That is YOUR definition of world class. If Zlatan can be described as world class (which he would be by most people, including this blog) then Rooney, a superior player definitely can be.

RAHUL KHOND on June 16, 2012 at 9:08 am

is this how england wants and does hodgson wants to field a hopeless team where there is no talent . gerrard may had thrown a great cross for carrol for a goal but can gerrard drive team forward playing tiki taka type which wellback is quite capable of playing . i cannot expect that from parker he is a destroyer . how can young and milner be in the starting eleven both dont offer anything for me . i can win a foot race against milner and dribble much better than him.even johnson who is in the team just because of his ability to go forward is hopeless and was very nearly caught yesterday . young cant pass under pressure and can nearly give the ball away when closed down . apart from that goal did caroll offered anything better i dont think so he cannot drive the ball let alone pass .a couple of times he could had passed the ball better and opened the defense but the weight on the ball was too much .

even the team shape wasnt great yesterday england were guilty of spending too much time on the ball . is this how hodgson wants his team to perform where on they give away stupid goals and hope that they get lucky.

Yang on June 16, 2012 at 9:16 am

England player often have no tactical sense, not playing for each other. Lack of skill and quality is no issue but lack of organization and team ethic is most serious problems.

England did well in the first half I thought, with Sweden leaving Gerrard free to have time on the ball he was able to get England playing and the ball into Sweden’s half, he was the key player (his cross was fantastic from deep). But then England dropped deep after the goal once again and allowed Sweden to dominate, this was always going to be a disaster as Sweden unpressed are a dangerous team, with Ibra seeing more of the ball with players around him. England then started pressing again and with Walcott on were able to break up Swedish play and have a big threat on the right. His goal wasn’t anything to do with strategy, but his assist showed what he can offer England, with an excellent burst of speed, the awareness to pick out Welbeck and then that cheeky finish. So credit should go to England for regaining the lead.

Positives were Johnson (apart from the 1st Swedish goal where he kept everyone onside) had a good game at RB, containing Elm and saving England on a couple of occasions. Gerrard did well when England were in control in the first half. Carroll lead the line well and the goal will do his confidence no end of good. Thought as a team they dealt with Ibra well, passing him onto defense when he moved high up, then to Parker when he dropped deep. The negatives were Terry showed his lack of pace, Milner his lack of quality, Young struggled to get into the game and conceded possession a lot and Welbeck did not suit his new position but took his goal excellently. As a team they dropped deep when should have kept pressing, for the second time in a row after scoring, a bad habit to pick up.

Sweden were always the weaker team today. Their lack of pressing meant Gerrard had a lot of time on the ball and the goal punished Sweden for this tactic. They were then gifted a way into the game when England dropped off and allowed them the time to pass the ball and get into Englands half. The two Swedish CM’s have shown that they can’t deal with intense pressure (vs Ukraine and England at times) but when given time can dominate possession and create chances. Sweden were then able to get Ibra into the game with support around him and Sweden were able to win free kicks and take the lead. Sweden were then pressed once again by England and lost control of the game, while their defense couldn’t deal with Walcott’s pace. Elmander had a good game leading the line for Sweden, but the wingers were poor once again and largely created nothing. Sweden are now out, their inability to play when put under pressure and their lack of threat from the wings were crucial weaknesses. Ibra wasn’t at his best today either, playing lazy balls at times, so Sweden didn’t have their best player to rely on.

Follow me @econinterests and check out my new article on Ukraine at Just football.

We suddenly lost all ambition (hard to say how, I think I’d have to re-watch), but it felt like we sat back slightly deeper and got a hell of a lot worse with our ball retention. It was slightly better at 3-2 but the Swedes were clearly tired at the end of the game which made it much easier to keep the ball.

When we had to play though, I thought we were good (contrary to this article!). As an England fan it would be nice to see them get over this psychological deficiency they have.

I’ve looked at that replay several times, and I think the little flash of colour near Larsson’s sock is actually his left hand emerging from view behind his leg, rather than a movement in the sock. It would seem strange for the sock to move so much in reaction to a glancing touch from the ball.

Robbie_V on June 16, 2012 at 11:59 am

Where England excelled against France was their solid defensive shape, which for most of that game prevented any French penetration. So off the ball they were disciplined and played on the counter attack. This is how England should play for the rest of the tournament in my opinion. It suits the players much better than what they tried to do against Sweden, which was to be slightly more expansive in possession.

Although England did not play particularly well yesterday the fact that the two goals Sweden scored came from set pieces is weirdly encouraging. What I mean by this is that surely this is an area that can be corrected with a couple of training sessions. Players the calibre of Hart, Terry and Lescott should be able to correct these lapses and eliminate them from future performances. Apart from when Kallstrom broke through and should have scored, Sweden did not really open up the England defence with most of their efforts being long range ones that Hart had time to deal with.

Last night I thought that Ashley Young was appalling in almost every aspect of the game. Defensively his positioning was all over the shot, hindering Ashely Cole as a consequence. When he did receive the ball he did nothing with it and inevitably gave it away in a dangerous position. He may have been on form coming in to the tournament but his frankly woeful performances in the opening two games mean that he should probably be dropped for the next game, bringing back Oxlade-Chamberlain who I thought performed well in the first game.

I think that given his performance last night, Andy Carroll deserves to keep his place meaning Danny Wellbeck will drop out for the returning Rooney. I would continue with Milner down the right and keep Theo as an impact option from the bench.

Sun on June 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm

Sweden were definitely the better side, though our defense were poorly. 5 goals conceded in two games is not acceptable, not even if you play the shit out of England. When Sweden were leading with 2-1, why did the defense just fall back next to Isaksson? Why not main tain possession and let England fight for the equalizer? We could easily make 3-1 instead of Englands 2-2, a shame this is.

Anton on June 16, 2012 at 12:50 pm

As a Swede I was really looking forward to this game from a tactical point of view. I’m not sure how much it’s known in the UK, but Roy Hodgson (along with Bob Houghton) has had a big influence on how football has been played in Sweden over the last 30 years. Lars Lagerbäck, our former coach, was very much in the “English School” (as it’s known here). Our new coach, Erik Hamrén, has been trying to step away from that a bit and wanting us to be a bit more proactive, shorter passing etc.

So if all had gone to plan this could basically have been the old school vs. the new school. Of course that didn’t really happen, you’ve noted Englands problems, but some Swedish players seemed to lack the nerve at times (this could be partly because of good English pressing) and they seemed forget the gameplan and, in a way, become stuck between the old and the new.

PCD on June 16, 2012 at 4:04 pm

I was definitely looking forward to the England vs. Sweden match from this tactical perspective. Sweden seem to have reverted back to their patient passing style of the 1950s and 1960s (i.e. Old old school) and I wanted to see how this would play out vs. an England that has become more similar to the swedish style of football played in the 1990s (especially with Carroll starting). I got a similar feeling to you about the players not yet fully comfortable in Lars Lagerbacks system.

However, I don’t know if this was just an off game (as vs. Ukraine), or if this is a wider problem as I haven’t watched Sweden play much outside of major competitions. Will be paying close attention vs. France…

Anton on June 16, 2012 at 4:54 pm

It’s a legitimate question: can Sweden play the way Hamrén wants against better teams? During the qualifiers they were torn apart in the first match against the Netherlands but there were also flashes of brilliance (the return against the Netherlands and a friendly against Croatia stand out). So it will be interesting to see – although I’m not sure the game against France will answer the question.

Van on June 16, 2012 at 12:51 pm

Great to read this after reading the reports in the papers (Guardian).
They described England as amazing, brilliant, somehow ignoring the fact Sweden scored twice.

observer on June 16, 2012 at 1:06 pm

ENGLAND ARE A DISGRACE

hope spain will FINISH THEM OFF

Johnygoodman on June 16, 2012 at 1:39 pm

Elaborate.

Sven on June 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm

As a non englishman I ask myself if a player like Walcott wouldn’t be crucial for a team like England that is parking the bus.
If you lack inspiration having a racer on the team would at least add fast braking pace and Gerrard could feed him with balls behind the opponent’s back line frequently.

Is Walcott lacking defensive discipline or stamina? Is he likely to loose the ball when pressured in his own half? Is his strength the open game and he struggles when forced back into tight spaces? Because it is hard to see what Milner offers to the team compared to Walcott…

PCD on June 16, 2012 at 3:53 pm

Without more data, it is difficult to comment on fitness levels, however I think there are 3 main advantages for Milner:
1. Better defensively. Glen Johnson has a reputation for being weak defensively (although he has played well in these 2 games). Milner offers cover in this position without losing too much offensively (he has a decent cross, and the lack of pace is compensated by Johnson overlapping wide). Walcott’s game is not as flexible, he doesn’t really seek to cover defensively, instead trying to be on the shoulder of the last defender to take advantage of his pace.
2. Walcott is the perfect impact sub if the team is losing. He has pace, directness, and is a reasonable shooter and crosser. By playing him from the start, you lose this option vs. a tiring defence.
3. However, I actually think that tactically, the biggest weakness of starting Walcott is that his pace naturally forces the other team to play a deeper line, making it harder to counterattack against, and by playing a 4-4-2 or a 4-4-1-1 with Young in the hole (who likes to drift wide as a central winger) England have noone to exploit the space between the lines.

chopin on June 17, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Point 3 by playing Walcott teams drop deeper allowing the midfield more time and space to play in.Also Ukraine play high and press up the pitch walcott should start and the English players should look for him unlike Carrol and Gerrard the other night who should have both put him in but didnt for vastly different reasons
A No vision
B Greedy f–ker

England need a passer in the mold of Scholes or Carrick. Given that both of those players were unwilling to join-up, Wilshere’s injury is what consigned this campaign to failure. I can’t see England beating one of the top teams.

I am not suggesting he is some sort of panacea to England’s inability to retain possesion but he is careful, considered passer of the ball and exactly the type of player that England need to stabilise things when under pressure.

Just take the ball and make simple little passes under the team can regain shape.

Parker is one dimensional. He will scrap, tackle etc but offers nothing more and given his all energy style, I doubt he would be an effective tournament player if England continued to progress. He will be knackered.

Gerrard seems to be settling down a bit and avoiding his quaterback 50 yard passes which inevitably concede possession to the opposition.

Imagine if Gerrard, during his career, had reaslied that a 5 yard pass could be as effective as a 50 yard pass? He would have been a much better player.

Or if he could demonstrate even a slight element of tactical discipline rather than storming around the pitch.

As far as I know Carick refused to go without solid promise of a first team football.He didn’t want to go again like in WC 2010.and be nailed on the substitute bench.If I were Hodgson,given other options,I would’ve promised him enything just to have him there.Yes,he’s not Xavi but this man plays in the best English club for 7/8 years now,has vast expirience,won CL and played two more finals-compare that to Bary and Parker?

As i’m not an England fan, I think I can contribute a objective voice…
IMO, England’s problem(s) is a non-brainer…
1. Steve G: Despite having a good last game, i believe he’s Englands number 1 problem. Or, more correctly, the incorrect usage of him. Despite being a leader and rather gifted technically, Steve is not a smart player… he’ll do what’s expected when the right moment comes but he’ll never use his head and do something unexpected as the likes of Iniesta,Rosicky,Muller,Nasri,Ribery and other decent attacking midfielders. The expectation of him is to do otherwise, and the team rely on him to do it. Also, there is only a certain area on the field where he feels comfortable, and he’s fish out of water elsewhere… This man needs to play CAM (Not CM not RM, CENTRAL ATTACKING MIDFIELDER)… otherwise he’s better as a sub, IMO. Which brings me to point 2.
2.I do not get the sacred cow which is 442… What’s up with that? It is clear it is not the best given the squad, this does not bring the best out of the players, is it some tradition i do not get? The positive in this, obviously, the usage of the wingers… BUT Milner and Young (nor Walcott)are not strong enough to carry the team on their shoulders.
IMO, since Rooney is back, either 41212 or 4231.I personally prefer the diamond formation, since England has a decent line of defence and can spare a holding defender… So, just midfield and attack:
Parker
Milner Young
Steve
Rooney Welbeck
or
Parker Milner(Carrick would be better of course)
AOC/Walcott Steve Young
Rooney

Opinions?

PCD on June 16, 2012 at 3:33 pm

I feel I should defend Hodgson’s use of a 4-4-2…

4-4-2 is a good formation when you want to play defense first football. You have 2 defensive lines close together (to close down space across the whole pitch), with cover in every position. When used defensively (the big problem for England in this game, when they needed to attack), the formation cuts down on space between the lines, and is very hard to attack through. It has three main weaknesses:
a. You can get outnumbered by 3 man central midfields. This means that often one of the strikers drops back into a 4-4-1-1, which is what Hodgson played vs. France, and in thie friendlies, and what Ferguson has played at Manchester for years). The difference between a 4-4-1-1 and a 4-2-3-1 is minimal, its a case of how much you press the fullbacks in defence. Hodgson played a clear 4-4-2 to take advantage of Caroll’s aerial ability in this game, and England were outnumbered when Ibrahimovic dropped back into midfield.
b. When attacking you can get exposed between the defender and midfield lines if the whole team doesn’t press together, or you are hit by fast counterattacks. This is a problem vs. weaker opposition, but not vs. stronger opposition, where England will defend close together, commit few men forward, and close down the space.
c. It is harder to build up offensive slow build-up passing moves, as the formation relies on creating boxes and lines rather than offensive passing triangles. This means that passing options are less varied, and without very fluid movement (which England lack) you can become predictable in terms of passing. In the Hodgson system, this doesn’t matter, as he is looking to counter-attack quickly and directly down the wings, so doesn’t mind if England do not retain possession.

The weakness of the Diamond suggested is that it lacks width in midfield. This means that you are relying heavily on your full backs to overlap, and they can often be outnumbered in wide areas. This is bad because England have 2 fullbacks that love to attack, and it is very very hot in ukraine (so saps stamina quickly). If England played like this against France, Ribery and Nasri would have either got a lot of space in behind Cole and Johnson, OR england would have been bottle-necked down the centre of the pitch (see AC Milan in Europe this season). If they played this way vs. Sweden, Ibrahimovic would have been able to exploit this space.

As I said earlier, a 4-2-3-1 is very similar to a 4-4-1-1 (which Hodgson DID play vs. France) however, vs. 2 wide creative players, I personally feel it is useful to be able to double up on the wings.

wild_bunch on June 16, 2012 at 8:59 pm

You have explained the pros and cons very well…
So there’s just a question of prioritization… Although this generation is not very technical, it makes up for it with heart, determination, and discipline..
I believe that with current squad it is better to have good flow, attacking ability, control in a midfield in the price of width.
Didn’t see England vs France.Checked ZM review. My guess is fullbacks weren’t too active in attack anyway. Moreover, with diamond, your DM can drop to defence…
Basically, AM and DM are between lines and can both move back and forth …
532433, in 442 they must go twice a distance (and it is hot in Ukraine )You very quickly becoming very attacking or very defensive.. I dont think width is that important when you have a fluid formation.. Any of the 5 attacking players can go wide… he still got at least 5 guys behind him. fullbacks can still go up but one at a time.
I believe that if you don’t dare, you do not win.. and THIS is the true problem, we just talking about symptomes…

PCD on June 16, 2012 at 3:57 pm

On Gerrard, I think you highlight the problem yourself. If he is not a smart player, surely you don’t WANT him to be your sole AMC (i.e. the central creative outlet that attacks go through). Isn’t it better to give him a simple role in CM, as Hodgson has given him, where he can follow simple instructions and distribute the ball wide quickly, whilst offering a different type of offensive threat by crossing from deep (see his two assists)?

He has demonstrated in the past that he cannot follow instructions and be disciplined.

It’s why Benitez shoved him out on the right wing. Having him centrally presented a problem as he is not creative enough and he also goes wandering during games leaving gaps.

As his physical attributes decline, its going to be difficult for him to sustain a starting position in a top level team.

PCD on June 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm

lets agree to disagree on this point

wild_bunch on June 16, 2012 at 8:29 pm

For attacking players, it is enough to make a few good desisions per game.. Defenders must make good desisions EVERY time. Good attacker = persistent (create enough chances and you will score… e.g Ibra)Good defender = accurate (make no mistakes and you’ll defend e.g Lahm, Lucio) Apply that to CM vs CAM… CM can loose one ball in bad position and the team will be punished.
Moreover, it is usually clear what is Gerrard about to do when he’s passing or shooting. However, there is a difference between forseeing the opposition play and stopping it…

11_giggsy_11 on June 17, 2012 at 5:05 pm

He isn’t smart in a CM role and never really has been CONSISTENTLY smart in a two-man central midfield role at club or international level, but in a AMC role, he is more than good enough. In a two-man central midfield, assists aren’t the be all and end all, especially on the international stage. First and foremost is to orchestrate possession and keeping it ticking over by being a available pivot for the players to pass to and receive from as the CM are the ones that help to get the wide players, full backs and forwards into the game as well as generally, being important to keeping possession. That is the basic platform/foundation a central midfield must provide, otherwise you will never stand a great chance of controlling the midfield against the opposition as the possession will turnover too much and end up getting dominated by the opposition a la France or getting possession turned over time and time again which effects the team shape’s stability a la Sweden. Gerrard (and Parker, although he is more reliant on Gerrard in that sense and rightly so) simply isn’t good enough at keeping the ball and moving the ball around midfield at international level. He is a problem in there, especially with his gung-ho nature and his penchant for trying to force things too much. Yes, it works sometimes but on the whole, its not the kind of CM you want at international level. He can do a decent shift defensively but once in a while the lack of defensive smart he has can come through and show why he isn’t a deep central midfield in today’s football. But for now, he is our best option in the squad, along with Parker, in central midfield and under Hodgson’s conservative tactics, the recklessness of Gerrard can be kept down to a minimum (has been at times, to be fair, in the two games) on a game by game basis if he keeps his discipline in check.

Its no wonder that Rafa moved Gerrard out of the central midfield and pushed him behind the striker or on the wing, where we saw a level of consistency from Gerrard that we never saw before.

There is simply not enough central mid’s in the whole team to play diamond with 4 midfielders as Hodgson left out Carick,Scholles and Bary,Lamps are injured,unless you want Henderson in first 11?(I don’t!)

dearieme on June 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm

Carrick and Scholes left themselves out.

patrick bateman on June 16, 2012 at 6:04 pm

i would love ZM or some poster on here, or anywhere, to provide evidence milner offers anything more than walcott, or anyone else, defensively.
or evidence he crosses well consistently.
these are the supposed reasons he starts england matches. with the exception of the man city drubbing of man united at old trafford(where he was, admittedly, fantastic), i have never seen milner perform at anything close to international level.
someone please explain him to me, and try and use evidence, rather than accepted wisdom.

Johnygoodman on June 16, 2012 at 9:57 pm

Well Walcott has always made his biggest impact as a sub, so it’s better he doesn’t start. Then who else is available? Downing? Poor form. Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain? Untested, and another impact sub. Johnson? Not in the squad, arguably not better in Hodgson’s system than Milner.

David B on June 18, 2012 at 4:56 pm

This article compares the potential England wingers’ stats from this past season:

I think that England should probably stick to the defensive plan that they had against France. It frustrated them badly.

However, if England are going to truly do well on the counter, they’re going to need to really embrace the little creativity and resourcefulness that they have on hand. For me, that means playing Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott on the flanks, with Rooney off of either Welbeck or Carroll.

Other than that, there isn’t much England can do. I had hoped for Young to do a lot more in this tournament. If he were in good form, his drifts to both flanks and link-up play would have been useful and really gotten England doing well on the counters. However, his passing and ball handling have been just plain poor, which makes him pretty obsolete here. Maybe Rooney can perform the same role, and I think him being surrounded by three nice good off-the-ball runners will allow him to be as much of a creative player as an executive one, and I think he can do both when asked, despite what some people on here seem to think.

Adam on June 16, 2012 at 10:35 pm

I believe Ashley Young will improve with Wayne Rooney back in England’s team. We’ve already seen the importance of bringing club relationships into international teams in the tournament so far – Michael (ZM) even brought it up before the tournament started in his previews. Having Young, Rooney and Danny Wellbeck in the same team could be a positive factor for England.

chopin on June 17, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Young has show little and is a liability in the 4-4-1-1 that we are playing too lightweight hasnt got the energy for it,give ox another chance much better physically than little Ashley.

11_giggsy_11 on June 17, 2012 at 4:06 pm

With Rooney, Welbeck tends to alternate with him (as well as sometimes switching to the left wing, when Giggs goes for a wander inside), they have that ‘give-and-go’ understanding and obviously, they have had time together to build on that. I think he struggled to find his rhythm against Sweden and at times, didn’t know whether to stick or twist alongside Carroll, whereas against France his role was more clear. Definitely it wasn’t one of those partnerships (Welbeck-Carroll) that clicked straight away. I think it has to either be, for this tournament anyway, Rooney-Welbeck or Rooney-Carroll (as Rooney knows how to get the wingers in the game, which in turn could provide crossing service for both him and Carroll, as the latter craves crosses it seems). Carroll-Welbeck need time to develop an understanding and that isn’t what you get much of in tournament football.

Pity about Ashley Young, as Ashley Cole can be a real width weapon but Young simply hasn’t got himself or Cole involved enough, which is partially down to him as well as the way the central midfield is unable to orchestrate possession at international level to get the wide players into the game. For me, its criminal that the attacking usefulness of Ashley Cole has been neglected as he has, for me, provided several moments of real spark on the left wing over the years. Also not sure how inside or wide Young was supposed to play against Sweden.

The biggest problem for me against Sweden was that if you are going to play 4-4-2 (no matter how flexible you make it), you have got to have two disciplined banks of four when without the ball. That was nowhere, absolutely nowhere to be seen against Sweden. Against France it was there somewhat, which frustrated the French, whereas Sweden cut through England many a time. Yes, we made the intention of trying to win this game bit more than the French game but doesn’t mean you should turn off defensively as a unit.

Ashish on June 17, 2012 at 4:07 pm

I agree England were poor against Sweden, but what I find surprising is that people are surprised by this performance. The general consensus before the Euros was that this was one of the poorest England teams to enter a major tournament, and considering the lack of proper preparation (new manager, Ferdinand saga, etc.), nobody expected England to do well.

Having said that, I still feel that a front four of Rooney, Walcott, Young and Welbeck posses the pace and ability to threaten any team on the break. And Walcott has done enough to prove that he should be part of the starting XI, in place of Milner.

incognito on June 17, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Not sure why Glen Johnson got praised for that tackle by the commentator, considering he should not encouraged the opposition runner in the first place with his dodgy positioning for that moment. There would have been no need to tackle like that if he was more aware in the first place.

Daffy on June 18, 2012 at 8:45 am

I can’t really see them winning against Ukraine. Except if it’s another crazy goal fest like this one. I’m sure the pace of Walcott and/or the Ox could cause maximum damage to the high Ukrainian D-line. But all in all, from what I’ve seen, Ukraine simply seems to have a better squad. With Yarmolenko and Konoplyanka two outstanding revelations of this Euro for me.
To put all this hope on a player like Rooney (world class, granted) looks like too much pressure for any player (cfr. RVP, CR7’s two games against normal defences, Balotelli …). All but Sheva obviously…

Poligraf on June 20, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Why do you think that Yarmolenko and Konoplyanka are potential hight level players. I’m Ukrainian and as for me they are midrange players of Europe level. Many Ukrainians fans are thinking they are potential super stars, but I don’t think so. They must still very hard work with skills.
About tactic of England: as for me it was good Hodgson’s choice to play by countr-attacks, but who knows, what could be happen after 1-1?